Re: Deadlock possibly caused by too_many_isolated.

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

> ---
> Subject: vmscan: comment too_many_isolated()
> From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> Date: Tue Oct 19 09:53:23 CST 2010
> 
> Comment "Why it's doing so" rather than "What it does"
> as proposed by Andrew Morton.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |    6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- linux-next.orig/mm/vmscan.c	2010-10-19 09:29:44.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/mm/vmscan.c	2010-10-19 10:21:41.000000000 +0800
> @@ -1142,7 +1142,11 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * Are there way too many processes in the direct reclaim path already?
> + * A direct reclaimer may isolate SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages from the LRU list and
> + * then get resheduled. When there are massive number of tasks doing page
> + * allocation, such sleeping direct reclaimers may keep piling up on each CPU,
> + * the LRU list will go small and be scanned faster than necessary, leading to
> + * unnecessary swapping, thrashing and OOM.
>   */
>  static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file,
>  		struct scan_control *sc)

nice!
	Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>